You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

I have not seen anyone argue that and the propose legislation isn't going to take away guns. So, where does the bold'd come from??? For someone that pretends to be logical, I find it strange that your arguments are not based on reality.

Criminals do not acquire guns legally since as a principle they don't wanna get caught, none of the mass shooters have been criminals since again as a principle criminals' aim is to make money not just suicidal rampage. Fact of the matter is you don't need customized assault rifles lying around in your house to protect you from whatever it is out there you are so scared of.
PS: My point was not to engage in gun control discussion with you, I was just asking why did you have to be such a typical conspiracy head who lives up to all the stereotypes despite you claiming to be a free thinker and all that.

In my opinion the main problem with guns is that if a fight happens, guns kill, fist most likely wont. While the rate of violent crimes probably wont change much with a gun ban, the amount of homicides most likely will decrease.
A gun just makes the problems bigger it does not fix them. If everyone had just fists, one might say that he would need a knife to defend himself, but then everyone has knifes, and now a gun is needed - it just leads to a place where 1 shot kills, 1 wrong decision and you will take a life.

I would like to see President Obama go visit a school or anywhere for that matter without his secret servicemen armed. How safe would he feel?

Hilarious how the White House called the NRA "repugnant and cowardly" for using Obama's daughters in their anti gun control ad, then he went and paraded a bunch of kids on stage during the executive action announcements

Criminals do not acquire guns legally since as a principle they don't wanna get caught, none of the mass shooters have been criminals since again as a principle criminals' aim is to make money not just suicidal rampage. Fact of the matter is you don't need customized assault rifles lying around in your house to protect you from whatever it is out there you are so scared of.
PS: My point was not to engage in gun control discussion with you, I was just asking why did you have to be such a typical conspiracy head who lives up to all the stereotypes despite you claiming to be a free thinker and all that.

Ok so you admit criminals acquire their guns illegally and most of the crimes are committed through these measures, then why the f*ck are you going after the registered law abiding gun owners.

This slippery slope bullshit has to be the dumbest argument ever. The problem is that the logic being used here (i.e. that allowing any regulation will be the first step in taking ______ away) were applied universally nothing would ever get accomplished.

This slippery slope bullshit has to be the dumbest argument ever. The problem is that the logic being used here (i.e. that allowing any regulation will be the first step in taking ______ away) were applied universally nothing would ever get accomplished.

Anti-gun advocates are riding on 2 fallacies:

1. Appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook)

2. Generalization (possession of a firearm by a psycho deranged kid by illegal means is the same thing as possession of a firearm by a well trained law abiding citizen).

Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.

The main reason the 2nd amendment was put in place was simply to allow the people a form of defense against a tyrannical government.

They (founding fathers) were smart enough to realize power corrupts and if the people can't defend themselves or at least put up a good fight, then there would simply be no 1st amendment. The ban of automatic firearms will lead to the ban of pistols down the line. This is not a slippery slope.

If law abiding citizens are using these firearms for protection from the government and other criminals, then why would it matter what form of protection they are using. Guns don't kill people, psycho deranged kids and criminals kill people.

Why are you after the good guys. The argument should center around deranged kids and illegal purchases of firearms, not the people who are law abiding citizens. That is the fallacy in your argument since the argument is fallacious to begin with.

Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.

This is the sort of impractical thinking that bothers me about this legislation. Sure rifles, and by that I mean assault rifles, are extremely dangerous. Their higher exit velocity, capacity, etc, make them more dangerous than handguns.
But if we're really trying to resolve the problem at hand, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed by handguns. So what is the real purpose of extra legislation on assault rifles.

What many people fail to realize is that the 2nd amendment means just that: the second most important freedom we have in a free nation. Freedom of speech is the most important because it allows us to convey our ideas and thoughts without retribution.

Why is the possession of guns so damn important you ask .. when we have the freedom to speak our mind against those in power (you know the people with the money, power, and bigger guns), we will need some sort of protection if those in power do not like what we have to say.

So the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to protect our right to say whatever the f*ck we want even if it pisses off the people controlling this country.

Today we can call our President an idiot and not be fearful he's going to put a rope around our necks and hang us.

That is why it was put under numero 2. The SECOND most important freedom a free man can have; what the f*ck is the point of being free if you don't have the power to protect yourself.

If a guy tries to rob my house, I should have the right to shoot him; if some dude wants to rape me in the a*s, I should have the right to stop him; if the government wants to abolish the constitution and be a dictatorship, the people should have the right to try to fight against that.

So what if our arms won't be up to par against the military; it sure as hell is better than a f*ckin' knife.

You are taking guns from law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves. The real problems are criminals who possess illegal arms and mental teenagers who are f*cked up in the head and shooting up schools. Go after those f*ckers. Why would you want to take guns away from the people who are only possessing firearms to protect themselves.

By equating them altogether is a generalized fallacy, which is a premise I cannot support.

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

That's the fallacy because if the criminals and deranged kids are getting these guns through illegal means, that is a failure of law enforcement and government officials who should find some measure to prevent such access, not the people themselves. Huge difference.

And how does that relate to a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state?